FAQ - Fusion - what is it? How do we know we are doing it?

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
Post Reply
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

FAQ - Fusion - what is it? How do we know we are doing it?

Post by Richard Hull »

I recently received a private E-mail from a person who asked a number of serious questions which were well stated regarding proof of our doing fusion. I considered the questions a virtual litany of questions that might be delivered by any person seriously questioning our fusion efforts who might be adroit enough to be worth answering.

First, a discussion of fusion

What is fusion

In the kind of fusion we are doing, deuterium nuclei (deuterons), are collided with other deuterons. We are colliding the deuterons in an accelerator/collider designed to work in the 0-60kev range, at present.

Deuterium cross sectional data charts tells us that virtually no fusion occurs prior to 10kev applied. From this point on, the fusion rate increases rapidly, especially above 20kev. We are also aware that after about 150 kev applied, fusion increases beyond this point are minimal compared to the additional energy applied. It is sort of a diminishing return situation at energies above 200kev.

The reactions possible in colliding D-D at any givien energy are 4 in number.

1. D + D = n + He3
2. D + D = p + T
3. D + D = 2n + 2p
4. D + D = He4 + Gamma

At lower energies (where we are working) only reactions #1 and #2 are really possible. Each reaction has roughly about a 50:50 chance of happening.

Reaction #3

This is the infamous "stripping" reaction whereby the deuterons are going so fast that they shear the neutron and proton apart. This reaction has a formal, scientific name: the "Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction". This reaction can't begin to occur until deuteron energies exceed 1 or 2mev and will not get strong until 5 mev. At 10mev deuteron energies, it will be the predominant neutron source and fusion reactions will be virtually non-existant.

Reaction #4 is just not a favored reaction, (nearly zero cross section), and occurs mostly at higher energies above 100kev. It would be very rare,even then, and completely masked out by the predominant reactions #1 and #2. The normal ratio for this reaction is one of this reaction for every 10 million of the other combined reactions. This is why many books on fusion don't even mention this reaction. It is just too rare an event.

**********************************************************
Now to those questions.
***********************************************************

Q. Could not the fusor be simply fracturing the deuterons to make the neutrons you detect via a process akin to the photoneutronic emission reaction?


A. If one looks at the energies required for photoneutronic emission, (high mev range), the same is true here. The deuterons would have to be in the 1-5 mev range before this reaction started producing countable neutrons. This reaction is the well known Oppenheimer- Phillips reaction. Our fusors normally operate at under 50 kev energies and never approach any form of threshold for this reaction to even begin.

******************

Q. Has anyone actually measured the chemical by-products, (nuclear ash), from the fusion reactions in fusors?


A. The the only two gases present in our fusors would be tritium and helium 3. Due to the low fusion rates in most amateur fusors, (~500,000 fusions per second), coupled with the attendant short duration run times, the normal expected concentration of these components are in the range of 1 in 10e14 parts of the fusor gas. A special electron multiplier boosted RGA might detect this, but it would be ruined and the electron multiplier would not work at the rather high pressures we use. Add to this the cost of the RGA device, and it is out of the amateur instrument class. Other people such as various professional and academic labs have measured protons in the fusor (fusion signature). So we tend to believe fusion is going on, but there is more compelling evidence in other quarters that is easier to obtain.

*******************************

Q. Has anyone attempted to obtain an energy spectrum of the neutrons produced by the fusor?

A. Not to my knowledge from the fusor, per se. This normally requires a TOF, (Time Of Flight), instrumentation system. Such systems are physically massive and very expensive. Again, outside of even most academic and professional budgets. However, a large body of evidence and careful science has shown that D-D fusion simply and readily occurs at our energy level.

The theoretical neutrons out of our D-D reaction are at about 2.45 MEV energy and are, thus, considered to be fast neutrons. Tests by our group using naked and moderated BF3 neutron counters indicates that the neutron flux from a working fusor contains no thermal, slow or epithermal neutrons, only fast ones.

*****************************

Q. Has anyone detected the gamma rays from the reaction chamber?

A. No! A fusor operator should NOT be able to detect any gammas! The gamma ray is produced only in the helium 4 reaction #4 above which is so rare as to be undetectable within normal background levels at our fusor energies.


*****************************************************
The above will arm you for most arguments by skeptics and educate most of you in what real D-D fusion is all about. You have been shown what reactions are seen in real fusion systems and at what energies competeing neutron reactions occur.

I hope this helps.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
teslapark
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:20 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: FAQ - Fusion - what is it? How do we know we are doing it?

Post by teslapark »

Nice FAQ here, because these questions do keep coming up. It's amazing how many people who are engineers and scientists who make claims like (and I do quote) "You need several MeV to do any fusion at all." and "This machine is too small to do fusion." I made a point from then on to always carry a cross section graph with me for science fair displays.

Some of the skeptics I've encountered wrote off neutron production by saying that amateurs with either faulty detectors or faulty skills in detection just "think" they are finding neutrons. To this response I showed them data from NASA's fusor in Hunstville. They like NASA's fusor better because it is over a meter in diameter, and they pump over 70kV into it at the low end. I find this very funny, because after talking with the people over the project at NASA, they said they'd much rather have a small chamber, but that was the smallest they could get on interdepartmental loan that was the right shape.

So far, none of the critics I've encountered have even been so clever as to propose the "stripping argument" for neutron production. The biggest doubt about the fusor from professionals and lay-people alike is that:

1. The device is too small.
2. The device is too cheap.
3. Fusion takes WAY too much energy for cheap and small to work.

These are perfectly reasonable reservations for people without a strong scientific background, because most high school courses, the mass media, and first level college courses equate fusion to something as big and hot as the sun, or as expensive as "Ivy League Only."

What irks me is that scientists and engineers have the same complaint. These people should know better, they are supposed to think on their own. True, they've probably never seen or heard of the fusor in their college coursework, so they might be naturally inclined to doubt at first. What's bad is these people tend to hang on to their doubts out of what I believe to be learned doctrine only.

I imagine it won't be too many years until some amateur with plenty of hands on fusing experience will publish an exhaustive and airtight paper on the subject. Still, reason only sways the reasonable, and the most pompous of the pro's may still refuse to accept.

Adam Parker
3l
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 3:51 pm
Real name:

Re: FAQ - Fusion - what is it? How do we know we are doing it?

Post by 3l »

Hi Richard:
Thanx for the post...you are the first to mention the Oppenheimer- Phillips deuteron stripping process.
I avoided mentioning it in order not to answer email from thousands of academics about it. It was a hip thing in physics in the eighties.
That's what the Homemade Htsc superconducting cyclotron I built was supposed to do. My mistake was to use a solid target instead of a heavy ice target. Humm beam to beam...Oh no!... not another way! Got a couple of kilos of 123 laying around tho in case I ever get bored. :p)

Hi Adam:
Thats the way it is out there.
You have a whole flock of people like that.
The so called experts.
It says so on their business cards.
In DOD, we the managers, hired only fresh recruites to design and build stuff...they didn't know any better and did it anyway.
20 years later I talked with a young guy who was under me but now has moved up to the head shed...he uses the same method still. He told me less lip and more zip.

Larry Leins
Fusion Tech
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: FAQ - Fusion - what is it? How do we know we are doing it?

Post by Richard Hull »

Nice reply Adam. You are 100% right on in your comments.

Actually, the very first naysayers that Tom Ligon and I ever encountered were the plasma physics guys saying we were just "stripping" deuterons. It was something they knew about (sorta') and so it became their mantra until I studied it at some length. All this played out over a month or two on the old songs site back in 98-99 time frame, if I remember correctly.

Otherwise, it is as you said. It appears too simple, done by non-academics, done far too cheaply, and it just doesn't make sense that amateurs could actually do it at all. So, it can't be real. This is the scientific logic they use?!!!!

Many fusion people actually involved in the work know very, very little about the low end. Why?

1. There is no grant money in it
2. There is no future employment in it
3. There is no glory in it.

When they see amateurs in it, they poo-poo it. First saying that it can't be done. Finally, if pinned down and proved fusion is occuring, and, without admitting fusion is being done, they note that it is of no real value in the grand scheme of things. It doesn't matter that for all their bluster and pompousness, they have squandered billions of the money over a half century essentially doing the same thing, but "on the large". They have LARGE inefficient and non-power ready fusion systems. We are just smaller and cheaper.

Finally, the person who actually jump started me to do the FAQ was actually asking all the right questions, in all the right ways. They were intelligent, well considered and reasonable, based on the baseline knowledge of someone who had studied fusion in a considered manner.

I answered his e-mail in the same fine tone that he queried in. I felt that I should prepare all of our group for similar questions posed by reasonable individuals questioning what evidence we might have to offer in support of our claims.

For Larry, the Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction was just the pro-name for "stripping" I find very few texts using the proper terminology. You might find more refs looking under "stripping" or "neutron stripping reactions", than under the Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction. I have only found a couple of texts that deal with the reaction in some depth. Most just gloss over the reaction as it is experimentally rare to have neuts at 10mev energies in collisional situations.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
hellblazer
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 12:16 pm
Real name:

Re: FAQ - Fusion - what is it? How do we know we are doing it?

Post by hellblazer »

Just to add my 2 cents in here...

One thing that always quiets the professional cynic faster than an Enron accountant at a congressional hearing is to merely point them to the peer reviewed papers in respected scientific journals on the subject.

I first tell them that they are being extremely lazy at critisizing something they have done absolutely no legwork on, and then give them a list of articles that they should go read and then argue with the authors of the papers before they start poo-poo'ing what is being done.

Here is a list

Believe me, nothing stops a professional in his diatribe of scorn for the amateur faster than a long list of peer reviewed papers in respected journals.

Try it. It's fun.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: FAQ - Fusion - what is it? How do we know we are doing it?

Post by Richard Hull »

Hal is correct! Xerox a few of his lists. Give them to the skeptic along with the talk info I gave above. He will now listen to you with a list in hand. Upon leaving he or she WILL CERTAINLY throw the list away because virtually no one will go to the trouble to locate the papers (just too lazy). However, the fact that you laid a list of peer reviewed papers on them instantly and went through a well done verbal talk will be enough to convince them you are not a total maroon. (Though they may think of you as a bit of an odd fish)

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
3l
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 3:51 pm
Real name:

Re: FAQ - Fusion - what is it? How do we know we are doing it?

Post by 3l »

What really drives them crazy besides the list is simply tell them you didn't major in fusion. Then after they dress you down about being an ignorant fool...then proceed to discuss the shortcomings of the mainline fusion machines. They will try to whip you with equations but all you need to do is memorize a total of four equations and what their abreviations mean. Then beat them up with the Lawson's Criteria. Their eyes get big as saucers when the unbelievable happens. Forums on fusions energy are another place to raise hell (ala R. Hull). The aurgument that you must be an academic to know anything is so absurdly false it is laughable. Albert Einstein put it best "If you truely study a subject for twenty years you become the Expert". I remember reading how the duel between the eminant Dr Langley and the Wright Bros proceeded. Washington poo pooed the Ohio Bicycle makers and wooed the good doctor. The rest is history.
Fusion I think is gonna end up the same way.

Fusion is fun!
Larry Leins
Fusion Tech
DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 1:13 am
Real name:

Re: FAQ - Fusion - what is it? How do we know we are doing it?

Post by DaveC »

Good Stuff everbody!! Well done. I agree, completely with the views that a well reasoned review of facts and theory goes a long way to help assure (if not convince) skeptical folks that at the very least you are well informed and a careful experimenter.

It is also useful for all to keep in mind that the most important question to pose when reviewing the results of our experiments is : " Now... what could I be doing wrong, here?"

The exercise of careful crosschecking is both healthy analysis and a large measure of insurance against embarrassing mistakes... to which all who are "experts" can testify.

Dave Cooper
ijv
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 10:23 pm
Real name:

Re: FAQ - Fusion - what is it? How do we know we are doing it?

Post by ijv »

One question about the "stripping" reaction (3) that crossed my mind is: Is "stripping" an endo or exo -thermic reaction.

If its endothermic, and stripping is the predominant reaction in the fusor, then Scott Little's fusor caliometry experiment should show a slightly negative energy balance, rather than the slightly positive energy balance his results inidicate (1.0000000001 !!!)

http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/fusor/bigsys3.html
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: FAQ - Fusion - what is it? How do we know we are doing it?

Post by Richard Hull »

First, We are not stripping. The reasons are given in the FAQ why stripping is impossible in our fusors.

All stripping reactions are 100% endothermic. It takes over 3 mev D-D to even start the reaction.

Second, no human being on the planet has ever done any calorimetery of any fusor, at any time.

I am a good friend of Scott Little. We sort of co-jointly did the first amateur fusion in fusors back in 1999. He is an expert calorimetry guy. The posting you refer to by him is based on D-D fusion exothermic energy in the fusor based solely on the neutron count from his fusor via CALCULATIONS and the 1.0000001 was obviously tougue-in-cheek.

Scott has been forced, by the nature of his paying job, to test a lot of whacko and also some very interesting and intriguing new energy systems. All of them that he has tested over the last 5 years...100%.... have been below unity. This, inspite of the claim of over unity by the inventors.

Such was his disappointment that once he built a fusor and saw it work as advertised, he was elated and did the D-D fusion energy calcs based on the simple and well known reaction. He instantly realized that it was not a viable over unity device in the practical marketing sense, but nonetheless, jokingly, tipped his hat to the fact that it was over unity.

I hope this clears this up. All fusing fusors are over unity via theoretical considerations (applied energy < waste heat losses + fusion energy) but so pathetically marginal that it would be a joke to even dream of using one in a practical sense. Thermal losses and conversions back to electricity would drag a practical machine far back down below unity. A recent and long running discussion here on this very topic dealt with this.

The brain can instantly see the elegance of the fusor, but the real world is cold enough to avoid the elegance in favor of operational reality.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
ijv
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 10:23 pm
Real name:

Re: FAQ - Fusion - what is it? How do we know we are doing it?

Post by ijv »

Thanks for clearing up the bit about the endothermic nature of all stripping reactions.

I'm afraid that I missed the bit about the energy balance being based on calculations, because at first sight, it looked to me like the positive (calculated!) energy balance could be another bit of experimental evidence that fusion was occuring rather than stripping.
Post Reply

Return to “Fusor and/or General Fusion Theory (& FAQs)”